>>13881596>yes I doNo, your explanations are full of typos and non-standard terminology and I can assure you that no one who reads it would understand it. Here are some examples of places where your writing is unclear
>Cross Section of Polarized LightWtf does cross section of light even mean?
>This is a plot of the magnitude of A in polar coordinatesThere is no "A" anywhere in your paper
>In every direction the antenna, represented by the bar, rotates the antenna will have the same reading.This sentence makes no grammatical sense.
I could keep going.
>that is the definition of the correlation defined by Bell.I'm not talking about the definition of correlation you moron, I'm referring to the fact that adding and subtracting *ratios* of signals to noise has no physical meaning
>no. Again, you're a moron. That graph plots correlation vs. relative angle for the measurements of *spins* of a pair of entangled spin-1/2 particles whereas your experiment with light does NOT measure spin, it measures *linear polarization*. It is a really trivial exercise to compute each of the N++, N+-, etc. terms using quantum mechanics and the final answer you get for the correlation is indeed cos(2 theta) as I said. For example, see figure 3 in this paper by Alain Aspect (who was literally the first person to properly test the Bell's inequality violation)
https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.91Even ignoring that, it's trivial to see why -cos(theta) should be completely wrong using just common sense. If theta is 0, this gives you a correlation of -1 (perfect anti-correlation) whereas if theta is 180, you get a correlation of 1 (perfect correlation) even though there is no physical difference at all between polarizers which are aligned at an angle of 0 degrees vs polarizers which are aligned an angle of 180 degrees. This alone is sufficient to explain why -cos(theta) is a completely nonsensical result.
